On Videogame Journalism

Michael_Blessed writes "The most incisive critique of games journalism currently out there. I would say that as I participated, but there's some real illuminating stuff in there. And it's all true - I should know, being a games 'journalist' myself." It's a whole long series - read all 11 parts.

Comments

Journalists? My ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalism is "[t]he style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation."

Re:Journalists? My ass.

[stratjakt]

"Journalists" take themselves too seriously as far as their writing skills. By far, most magazines and newspapers are written at a 5th grade comprehension level. If they werent, the target audience would be too narrow. The exception is usually highly specialized stuff like medical journals written for doctors.

Game journalism has to be even lower than that, since 5th graders make up a part of the target audience. So they're written at an even lower level. My 2nd grader reads game magazines.

Huh?

[Anixamander]

"The most incisive critique of games journalism currently out there. I would say that as I participated, but there's some real illuminating stuff in there. And it's all true - I should know, being a games 'journalist' myself."

Well then, this is my critique of a game journalist: Always preview before submitting. Sentence structure is important.

old man murray

[joe_bruin]

old man murray, while probably not being so much of a video game journal itself, was much more of a meta-video game journal, in pointing out the whoring practices of most of the press out there as well as everything that is wrong in the video game software industry. their benchmark "time to crate" (the time it takes from when you start a first person shooter to when you see the first crate or barrel) is still a good indicator of at what point the developers ran out of ideas.

sadly, these days it is just an archive of old articles. still pretty funny, though. you gotta love a site so dedicated to taunting john romero.

video games make us think?

[garcia]

Hell, even that Denis Dyack character. Even games that do not strive for art have a cultural influence. Even BMXXX makes us think.

Eh, I don't think that video games make us think all that much (sure, there are those that do, RPG, puzzle games, etc), but the vast majority of games are there for blind entertainment.

Very little actual thinking goes into any of it (especially after playing it several times).

Take any racing game, first person shooter, or even any random new board game... None of them are full of all that much thought. You sort of do them over and over again and don't even need to have your eyes open.

I was playing a 1960's boardgame that my gf bought off EBay (nostalgia I guess, her mother had it in their house when my gf was little). "Careers" has WORDS all over the board. Directions right there on the board. You actually have to READ the directions to learn how to play.

I was shocked. Now we are filled with games that require no thought (how many people bought GTA3 to actually PLAY the game?) I don't know anyone that came over to my place to play GTA3 that wasn't interested in using the weapons cheat and shooting the shit out of everything in sight.

This guy is a gamer (has 600 titles). Of course he's pissed off about what media reports. Slashdotters used to be (and sometimes still are) pissed off about how Linux was portrayed.

This article was too much.

Re:video games make us think?

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you missed the point there. it's not that the game itself makes you think while playing it, but that if we look at the way the game plays against our culture. bmxxx was a HUGE deal because it was the first majorly produced mass-media game with nudity on any console system in the US. and while those from japan where nudity is more common in games may not see a big deal here, to americans, it was like the first sex scene in movies. and when tastefully done, it can be art. when not tastefully done, it can be porn. more often than not, it's both.

What an idiotic statement...

[GreenCrackBaby]

Regarding game reviews:

Objectivity has got to go, for one thing. Anyone who says that the personal experience of interacting with a game can be discussed objectively - well they're just flat out wrong to even try. Experience colors everything we write, being humans and all. What we have to do is weigh our desire to share our opinion, the one we're sure is right, against the fact that no two persons will experience something in the same way.

WHAT!?! I don't care if this guy thinks games are evolving into an artform. That's almost meaningless in a game review. I buy a game for entertainment, and could care less if the creators think they are the next Piccaso.

Objectivity is essential in a game review. I want to know if a game crashes, if the AI is a pushover, if the interface is garbage, etc. While there's some subjectivity in those things, a crash is still a crash.

Sure, you need to subjective material in a game review. However, calling for the complete loss of objectivity in a review is just plain idiotic!

Re:What an idiotic statement...

[fondue]

You don't get it.

Yes, you can make objective statements about whether a game contains X or Y in certain amounts, but you can't put a number on whether it's fun, or imaginative, or addictive, or whatever.

The best a reviewer can do is put across their take on the game and try to give the reader some contextual information (have you played X? Do you like the genre? Do you find this feature annoying on general principle?) to give them some idea as to whether they're likely to reach the same conclusion.

They're not reviewing toasters or pieces of hardware where you can make a clear cut objective analysis.

Re:What an idiotic statement...

[tgibbs]

Objectivity is essential in a game review. I want to know if a game crashes, if the AI is a pushover, if the interface is garbage, etc. While there's some subjectivity in those things, a crash is still a crash.

I think what you mean to say is that facts are essential. Objectivity would be not particularly caring whether the game crashes. The objective writer tries to set aside his own emotional reaction (which if he cares about games, he presumably has), and rate a game according to some external standard--perhaps a list of criteria, or his notion of what an "average" player might like.

InsertCredit is insufferable...

[sbma44]

Really, I've wanted to claw my eyes out after every article I've read on this cursed site. How navel-gazing can games journalism get? How drawn out and mundane can an article's introductory philosophizing be made? IC attacks both these questions with the gusto and insight of an 11th-grade blogger/lit mag editor.

Please -- no more lectures on journalism. And stop confusing nostalgia for games from your formative years with Socratic ideals of gamehood.

I don't want this to just be a flame, so here's some constructive criticism:

1. the cliche "write write write" is indeed good advice. But then you need to edit edit edit.
2. If your average paragraph length is two sentences, it may owe more to a personal penchant for melodrama than to skillfully pacing readers through your world-shattering insights

Damn. I guess that was a flame after all.

Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or was that one of the least incisive, most boring diatribes that has ever been written? It reads like it was written by a self-impressed thirteen year old who just discovered criticism. It's less about education than edification. Less about helping journalists than it is self-aggrandizement. He doesn't even offer any of his own work as an example of "goodness". It basically comes down to: "My work is better than yours, and your work proves it."

Furthermore, it reads like an inside joke and in my opinion is much more likely to alienate journalists than give them a reason to think.

I tried, but didn't gain anything from the article but a distaste for the author. Maybe it's just me.

"Journalist"?

[PincheGab]

This guy calls himself a journalist ans writes imcomplete sentences like these:?

The most incisive critique of games journalism currently out there.

This is only a subject and no verb. The sentece says nothing. Sorry, but I cannot take anyone seriously when their writing gets in the way of the message, whatever the message is.

A "need" for game Journalism?

[decipher_saint]

What I managed to get out of the first two pages (which wasen't easy, this guy apparently hasen't heard about paragraphs) was that there is a need for more+better video game Journalism. But I really have to question this, I don't know about others but when new games come out all I'm really interested in are the technical details; Look? Cost? Run? Let me figure out if it's fun. But then again the same thing could be said about about movie reviews couldn't they? I'm not interested in someone else's opinion on their level of enjoyment gleaned from a title or how this game might or might not impact society or how it might alter our culture. To be honest I find that most reviews are fairly pointless.

He then talks about the current situation of game Journalism, which basically boils down to reviews (and not so much comment). To me, reviewers have no choice but to compare their own (jaded?) experience towards game reviews and will lean harder on games that might well be fun for you and me.

I guess it will always boil down to what my personal preferences are, not what some "journalist" thinks.

I'd also like to point out that the author of this feature tries to validate himself as an authority on gaming by telling us how many games he has in comparison to his pissing-contest-winning music collection. How does this make the reader respect the opinion of the author exactly?

You know an art is nearly dead...

[Qbertino]

...when it's got critics like classical music and literature.

Honestly, I used to be annoyed about the fact that literature critics would constantly run circles around 'Ulysses' and have not half a word for 'Snow Crash'.
Now I've come to notice that I don't want the forms of art I like to be handled by 'professional critics'. Be it the art I do myself or the art I enjoy. Critics suck. Especially when applauded by people who think they are essential to art. And those applauding suck even more. Both of them aren't essential either to making or enjoying art. And they never will be.
Trust a guy who was/is a professional artist, enjoys art and also enjoys analyzing art. Allthough I'd rather shoot myself than do that for a living.

Re:You know an art is nearly dead...

[demastri]

I'm not sure you get it, fully.

When you do something for yourself, there are different motivations and expectations than there are for those viewing or otherwise using your art. At the very least, the number of producers and new works is likely to be so large that the user has no way to properly sample all of them. In this sense, there is no substitute for a critical press or other filtering mechanism to allow consumers to experience the things they generally want from art.

From this perspective, critics have a useful role for both communities - linking artist and like-minded consumers.

When a self-appointed elite of critics performs more than this relatively objective filtering function - i.e. determining which artists "belong" to a given genre or are allowed to control rewards to particular artists, then I'd question the underlying value of the genre or artists being discussed. True art will find its audience under phenomenally difficult conditions - independent music is the exemplar. Fanzines and sites reliably point consumers to sounds they'd likely enjoy - while labels funnel sheep to the sounds they can best market.

If you truly love your art, and the art it's a part of, I'd think being a critic comes along with the territory - you have to judge what you do for yourself, no? This inevitably results in comparison and explanation, even if it's for your own edification and improvement - guess what - that's criticism.

- John

The real trouble with games journalism

[ShakaUVM]

So, ok, the guy in this article says that games journalism needs to be more thoughtful. Ok, whatever. Sure. That's a good idea.

What I think is the most significant problem with games journalism, though, the guy seems to have completely missed -- people who review games almost universally give a game a good rating when they have a preview copy of it.

This makes games reviews completely irrelevant.

It derives from ego, and their ability to say that they have a spiffy new game before anyone else. When they say this in a preview/review, they can't follow it up with "...but the game has pretty major problems with it" because then their coolness for having the game early is negated.

I don't know how I've wasted on games which weren't worth my time & money, simply because all the reviews I've read rave about how great it is, simply because there's a big buzz about the game and they got a copy first.

What I'd like is for game journalists to review their best ratings for games that are real pearls, like Deus Ex, Quake, or Daggerfall, and not waste America's money with their faux critical reviews.

-Bill

Mod the parent up

[tmark]

Here are some more "highlights" from the most incisive critique I've ever read:

Yes, I feel - surmounting the inherent self deprecation that all thoughtful human beings hold dear - that I have something to say about videogames that hasn't been said before, at least not in just the way that I say it. Those metaphorically under/oversigned to this article feel the same or similarly.

Wtf ??? and more:

Objectivity has got to go, for one thing. Anyone who says that the personal experience of interacting with a game can be discussed objectively - well they're just flat out wrong to even try. Experience colors everything we write, being humans and all. What we have to do is weigh our desire to share our opinion, the one we're sure is right, against the fact that no two persons will experience something in the same way.

And that's just from the first page. Has there ever been a bigger bag of long-winded self-aggrandizing tripe than has been produced by these guys ? Not since Jon Katz, I'd wager. If we ever needed proof the editors here don't read the articles posted to... THIS IS IT !!!

Important!

[Melchior_of_wg]

Something which most people seem to miss, is this important fact:

There are 11 chapters because there are 11 writers!

If you don't like the author of the first chapter, don't let that prevent you from reading what the others say. The 'quality' of the articles varies greatly.

If nothing else, read chapter 7 by Jane Pinckard. I found that one to be relatively different than the rest, and actually easily readable.

Right the fuck on!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything I've read from these guys, EVERYTHING is utter self-important, ultra-arrogant crap. The article he wrote about buying all those copies of FF6 to see what the names were? 95% "Hey, look at me, I lived in Japan." 5% on the actual professed subject of the article.

These guys MUST be friends of the folks here who post the stories, because they just apparently post them carte-blanche.

This article, and all its 11 parts sucked though. Even Tycho from PA didn't have anything decent to say, and he knew it. His contributed article was shorter than his average newpost for his front page.

Look at the great folks we got contributing here. GameGirlAdvance...who tried to convice us that all the really dope shit at E3 was in Kentia Hall, and the pictures of the booths they showed...WERE FROM THE MAIN FUCKING HALLS.

Someone from The Gaming Lack of Intelligence Agency. Insteresting posts of game commercials and stuff from Japan...aside from that..crap...and on top of that, Andrew Westahl is a raving fan-boy dick...in real life, too. I've got tons of game industry friends that say they swore the guy was stalking them.

Chris Kohler...whose "incisive comments" amounted to:

Spell correctly, use good grammar, don't be a fan-boy, make sure your facts are correct, don't be boring, don't be stupid, and don't be boring again.

Zow! Those guys are sure going to feel the burn from that one! This isn't incisive...it's common sense. Anyone who falls victim to any of his 8 points and is getting paid should have been fired. It doesn't help to raise standards of an industry when all you demand is that they are above the bottom of the barrel.

On top of that, retard Tim stuck his introduction to the piece as his Chapter 6 of his 11 part fiasco, instead of making it the introduction. But what does that matter, since all he had to say about it was more about himself, and how his site was named Site of the Month by Edge magazine.

Learn how to capitalize, and lose the pseudo-avant-garde shit, Tim. While you're at it, tone down the fucking bold, biatch.

So to sum up the scorecard:

IGN: Paid off, and can't write.

Gamespot: Wants you to pay them to be paid off.

Gamespoy: Paid, but can write.

insert credit: Doesn't actually write about the game industry, because they think writing about themselves is far more important. Oh, and they can't write worth shit.